Thursday, January 31, 2013

It’s admirable that Fick raised the topic, even if his opinion is just as repugnant:

“I can’t meet gays in… I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,” said Fick, who also dropped a crude anti-gay slur twice in the first 20 minutes of the show, later couching his statements with “I have some gay friends and it’s all good.”

The actual good news was, the Weavers didn’t agree.

“Just let ‘em be whatever they are. As long as they can hit or pitch, come on in,” Jeff Weaver said.

The best news was, Jered Weaver probably will be playing baseball for a long time, and would have some influence once an active major leaguer finally comes out. This is what he said:

“If you’re hitting .300 with 40 and 140, bring ‘em on, you know?”

“I think it would just be a shock at first, but it’s still your teammate in the long run.”

“They worked just as hard as us to get up to where we’re at.”

It’s not utopian, but at least it’s practical. Fick backed down a little, saying he probably would get used to having a gay teammate. He’s done playing, so we’ll never know. Young added a wince-inducing: “As long as he’s not trying to crack my back in the shower…” before following up with “To me, people are people so it doesn’t bother me.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Why you think pleasure in sex relates to pairbonding and shared child rearing I honestly have no idea, but since there is nine months between sex and the arrival of the little bundle I really doubt the linkage.

IANAscientist but isn't that the purpose of oxytocin, supposedly released during both orgasm and breastfeeding, to bond the mother to her mate and to her child? Also released in males IIRC but I don't have time to browse through my Desmond Morris books right now.

Bonobos are pretty cool. knowing that a close genetic relative also enjoys sex and lives in family groups, raises young for a long time . . . well that certainly seems to indicate that deriving pleasure for sex (I guess the question is do bonobos produce oxytocin?) has some evolutionary basis, as well as a connection to bonding.

I'm pretty sure I had Fick as a backup fungible utility warm-body placeholder on one of my fantasy teams during a three-week period when he didn't suck.

Didn't he also qualify as a catcher (not in the gay sex sense, I suppose ... NTTAWTT) once upon a time? In which case he would've been potentially more useful than otherwise (see also: Barrett, Michael, & Leyritz, Jim).

Fick came up as a catcher and caught 158 games over his career. I had him on my Strat keeper team -- young, lefty catcher who could hit a little. What's not to like? Then you're stuck with a 1B/RF/LF with a 95 OPS+.

“I can’t meet gays in… I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,” said Fick, who also dropped a crude anti-gay slur twice in the first 20 minutes of the show, later couching his statements with “I have some gay friends and it’s all good.”

Fick could probably have phrased it better, but in the most general case I don't think there's anything wrong with him acknowledging that he would be uncomfortable being in the locker room with a homosexual teammate, purely as a thing unto itself. Fears aren't rational, and accepting that it is a fear (rather than a logical or ethical position) is a good first step. People need to be honest about these things if we're going to ever get past them.

Bonobos are interesting critters. So very similar genetically yet so very different culturally/socially from chimpanzees. Having not read the entire thread I don't know that this has been mentioned, if so I apologize for the duplication. A number of primates masturbate, which suggests that within that species there's more than a procreative component to sex.

Fick could probably have phrased it better, but in the most general case I don't think there's anything wrong with him acknowledging that he would be uncomfortable being in the locker room with a homosexual teammate, purely as a thing unto itself. Fears aren't rational, and accepting that it is a fear (rather than a logical or ethical position) is a good first step. People need to be honest about these things if we're going to ever get past them.

I agree with this totally. I am uncomfortable around heights. This does not mean I am suggesting glass elevators are somehow wrong or bad, simply I am not 100% comfortable riding in them. Now if I go on about how evil/immoral they are, or how they should all change to suit my comfort or that I should never have to deal with them, then I am being unreasonable.

There is a difference between acknowldging a personal flaw (my discomfort with glass elevators) and suggesting they are somehow bad (thus making the flaw theirs).

EDIT: And no I am not suggesting a perfect equivilence between fear of heights and fear of 'teh gay'.

I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,”

I understand what Vlad and BM are getting at, but it is at the point above where my acceptance ends. I don't give a #### how uncomfortable he is, he is talking about a large section of humanity, not spiders or rope bridges, and he needs to grow up and get the hell over it.

I understand what Vlad and BM are getting at, but it is at the point above where my acceptance ends. I don't give a #### how uncomfortable he is, he is talking about a large section of humanity, not spiders or rope bridges, and he needs to grow up and get the hell over it.

Well, there are a lot of places he could go from here. He could say "It would be uncomfortable for me...but not as uncomfortable as not earning a paycheck from a major league team, so I'd find a way to deal with it".

A question they should ask these guys is: Assuming all else is equal (playing time, salary, etc.), would you be more comfortable on a losing team with nothing but straight, full-bore heterosexual manly men on your roster, or competing for a World Series ring on a team where two of your best players were out of the closet? Not necessarily flaming, but publicly out gay guys.

I don't give a #### how uncomfortable he is, he is talking about a large section of humanity, not spiders or rope bridges, and he needs to grow up and get the hell over it.

Lots of people are uncomfortable around "a large section of humanity". One of my former co-workers can't stand to be around children, and another one is terrified of clowns. If you were forced to share a cubicle with an evangelical Christian who wanted to convert you, would you be entirely comfortable with that?

Furthermore, how do you know that Fick isn't trying to "get the hell over it"? My maternal grandmother was a huge racist, but at the same time she was crossing the street to avoid black people in her neighborhood, she was (slowly, oh so slowly) working her way through an old bell hooks book I had read in college. People are a work in progress.

Well, there are a lot of places he could go from here. He could say "It would be uncomfortable for me...but not as uncomfortable as not earning a paycheck from a major league team, so I'd find a way to deal with it"

There should be some discrete term to describe the fallacy of attributing to the thinking of Robert Fick far more nuance and subtlety than any evidence has ever suggested capable by Robert Fick. That term should probably be German.

Well, snapper is one of the vast minority of American Catholics who actually does anything more than pay lip service to the church doctrine on social issues, so he's probably not representative.

Lots of people are uncomfortable around "a large section of humanity". One of my former co-workers can't stand to be around children, and another one is terrified of clowns. If you were forced to share a cubicle with an evangelical Christian who wanted to convert you, would you be entirely comfortable with that?

Worse than that, imagine sharing that cubicle with evangelical child who dresses like a clown!

There should be some discrete term to describe the fallacy of attributing to the thinking of Robert Fick far more nuance and subtlety than any evidence has ever suggested capable by Robert Fick. That term should probably be German.

I'm just saying, if his manager walked in and said that they'd just traded for some openly gay player, and Fick was given the option of learning to deal with it or packing his bags, he may learn to deal with it pretty quick.

I'm just saying, if his manager walked in and said that they'd just traded for some openly gay player, and Fick was given the option of learning to deal with it or packing his bags, he may learn to deal with it pretty quick.

I agree with this. I just doubt his statements from this podcast were nuanced or considered to this level. Robert Fick has never struck me as a deep thinker. Or even a kiddie pool shallow wader thinker, for that matter.

If you were forced to share a cubicle with an evangelical Christian who wanted to convert you, would you be entirely comfortable with that?

I've had a woman in my office trying to convert me for the last month. We work together fine. It isn't close to the first time in the past decade, in the past five years. I haven't had a gay man try to convert me since 1998.

Think back yourself - how do these compare in your life, evangelicals trying to convert you vs. gay men trying to convert you?

Furthermore, how do you know that Fick isn't trying to "get the hell over it"?

I don't. If he is, based on what he said about not wanting gay men around in his workplace, I think he should try harder; and more power to him.

I have had people of differing religious faiths (usually evangelical protestants of stripe or another) try to convert me.
The Jehovah's witnesses have been the most annoying, I've been told that the Mormons can be to, but haven't had a problem with them.

I once had a really great time when two travelling dudes wanted to talk to me about their faith (I wasn't really paying attention to what faith that was). Their opening gambit was to ask what church I was raised up in, and what its principles are. So we had a long talk about Henry VIII and 16th century dynastic politics. I think they would have preferred if we'd talked about God more, but I had fun.

If you're going to take anything away from this thread, it is the message that snapper has a really, really dismal depressing view of sex and sexuality.

I am not speaking for Snapper, but as the only other person in this thread who appears to be on his side in this discussion, this statement could not be more wrong. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful, loving marriage. I realize that many of you think that it is wonderful outside the context of marriage, but just because we do not, that does not mean that we think that it is dismal and depressing.

Worse than that, imagine sharing that cubicle with evangelical child who dresses like a clown!

The guy with the clown thing would probably have a literal heart attack and die if he had to be that close to a clown of any sort.

There's a local entertainer who performs as Buffo, the World's Strongest Clown. Tears phone books in half, that sort of thing. Anyway, one time my department was out having lunch together, and Buffo walked into the restaurant, and my former co-worker screamed like a little girl and hid under the table. Not kidding.

There should be some discrete term to describe the fallacy of attributing to the thinking of Robert Fick far more nuance and subtlety than any evidence has ever suggested capable by Robert Fick. That term should probably be German.

Well 'fick' is German for fuck, which brings this whole thread full circle.

Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful, loving marriage

If that's how you like to swing, swing it that way brahmin. But as Vlad points out @139, it's unjust to deny gays and lesbians access to that same "wonderful, beautiful thing" just because you are hung up on an outmoded definition of "marriage." Either embrace the idea that loving couples should get married to validate their sexual longing, or accept that sex isn't a marriage-based instinct.

I am not speaking for Snapper, but as the only other person in this thread who appears to be on his side in this discussion, this statement could not be more wrong. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful, loving marriage.

But that's not snapper's position, or at least it's only part of his position. His position is that sex is a wonderful beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful loving marriage, and only when that marriage is between a man and a woman...because sex is really only for procreation...but you can still have it if you're unable to procreate...as long as you aren't the same sex.

Of course, it's also pretty preachy to imply that sex is only a wonderful, beautiful thing within the context of a faithful and loving relationship when that relationship is officially sanctioned by either God or the government.

It's all based on the specific person of that faith you're talking to, but in my limited experience the most enlightening, and fascinating (comfortable?) discussions about their faith have been with Catholics, Muslims, and Sikhs. On the opposite end of the spectrum are Waldensians...bloody splitters.

If you're going to take anything away from this thread, it is the message that snapper has a really, really dismal depressing view of sex and sexuality.

Don't have time to catch up to this thread, but just wanted to point out that you're completely misunderstanding me.

I think sex is absolutely wonderful. A great thing.

What I have a dismal view of, is the fallen nature of man. Humans are generally selfish, venal, short-sighted, and prone to doing immoral things because of their "feelings". It is the misuse of sexuality driven by these failings that I find dismal.

If you must assign a "purpose" to sex, you should stick with "human joy."

No offense, but that's an idiotic statement. Sex very clearly has a purpose, and it's procreative. You might as well say the purpose of eating is "human joy" - but it's to nourish our bodies. Can/should both be enjoyable? Certainly. But that's not the purpose.

i consider myself a devout christian. i figure that if jesus christ Himself did not shun lepers (worse than the homosex back then i would say) that i should not shun or treat differently another human who was born gay.

i am tired of people calling themselves "christian" as a way to justify shunning homosexuals. intolerance is not part of the christian religion, far as i am concerned.

i am tired of Certain People and They Know Who They Are, around here who too often tie together "conservative" "republican" and "evangelical christian" as every person who is christian and not atheist/secularist is stupid/intolerant/bigoted etc

oh yeah

all those people who try to convert me to their whatever religion, i tell them i am a bonobist - multiple husbands in service to Me, the Empress. would they like to be husbands seeing as how i could really use another husband to fix my driveway

What I have a dismal view of, is the fallen nature of man. Humans are generally selfish, venal, short-sighted, and prone to doing immoral things because of their "feelings". It is the misuse of sexuality driven by these failings that I find dismal.

When did they fall? From what did they fall? What's your evidence for this?

i am tired of Certain People and They Know Who They Are, around here who too often tie together "conservative" "republican" and "evangelical christian" as every person who is christian and not atheist/secularist is stupid/intolerant/bigoted etc

Just out of curiosity, how many knuckle-dragging fascists & their slack-jawed, slope-browed followers identify themselves as anything other than Christian? (Especially if one considers Mormons Christians, which I guess depends on how compatible one regards Chariots of the Gods as being with the Bible.)

155. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: January 31, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4359639)
Also, thanks to snapper for expressing his views so well in this thread. I'm with you, my Catholic brother.

No offense, but that's an idiotic statement. Sex very clearly has a purpose, and it's procreative.

This perfectly illustrates how the Catholic church ##### with the sexuality of their congregate. That's it's only purpose? It's procreative? Boy, that must be a real turn-on for your SO- "Hey honey, can you get dressed up tonight in that costume you know I like? I want to knock you up.".

Guys, don't you know, if you want to experience emotional fulfillment, you don't want to take your cues from emotionally stunted middle-aged pederasts?

What I have a dismal view of, is the fallen nature of man. Humans are generally selfish, venal, short-sighted, and prone to doing immoral things because of their "feelings". It is the misuse of sexuality driven by these failings that I find dismal.

I'm also failing to understand how having sex with someone, that is, sharing a physically and emotionally fulfilling experience, constitutes misuse of sexuality and is immoral. Equally so, is eating a filet mignon immoral because it constitutes a misuse of ones digestive system? That is, eating is solely for nourishment. That you may also enjoy the meal is irrelevant, or rather, should be discouraged.

You know what's immoral? NOT having sex with someone who wants to have sex with you, and you with her, because of some bizarre and perverted notion of the purpose of sex and sexuality.

What about all of this talk about the purpose of sex, and what various church doctrines say about either the purpose or permissibility of sex? Maybe that's not really the relevant question. This thread started out being about whether professional athletes would tolerate an openly gay teammate.

1. Suppose an athlete cohabits with a woman (and presumably, as far as anyone knows, has frequent sex with that woman) but is not married to her. (And let's suppose that this is, as far as anyone knows, a monogamous relationship). Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

2. Suppose an athlete is not married and not attached to any one woman, and frequently has sex with different women whom he meets in different cities. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

3. Suppose an athlete is married, but frequently has sex with a particular woman other than his wife. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

4. Suppose an athlete is married, but is a "player", actively seeking out sex with various available other partners. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

5. Suppose an athlete is openly gay. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

Run all of those through your church doctrines and your statements of the purpose of sex. If answer to the question changes only between #4 and #5, that's really not religious doctrine at all. That's "yuck".

As an aside: suppose you ask a broad spectrum of people, some religious, some not particularly religious themselves but generally aware of doctrines and beliefs, to free-associate starting with the word "sin." How often would the associations and imagery be sexual?

BTW, my questions in 163 are not a taunt or a raspberry. I'm sincerely interested in how a "fall of man" is reconciled with biology and evolution of man. But, that can get complicated, so I'll understand if believers just take a pass.

And, unlike others here, I'm not particularly interested in ragging on the Catholic Church and Christianity while excluding other churches and religions. (Although in the abstract both the Catholic Church and Christianity are empty suits as far as I can tell, but then so are all other religions and churches--Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, you name it--again, as far as I can tell.)

Is there a Roman Catholic Faith Factory you guys can take this discussion to?

George Michael Reference FTW!

At the end of Prince's "Darling Nikki" -- in which the title character masturbates in public -- there's some backmasking. Back in the ol' LP days (I'm old) I gave it a spin. The backmasked bit is all about God and love.

At the end of Prince's "Darling Nikki" -- in which the title character masturbates in public -- there's some backmasking. Back in the ol' LP days (I'm old) I gave it a spin. The backmasked bit is all about God and love.

That slash line is very odd. Clownish, if you will. (Or, That's a clown slash line, bro.)

I'll say. .244/.396/.293?? Sure, the OBP is nice, but that looks like a banjo hitter who doesn't swing at anything, hoping to draw a walk. (A tactic that, unsurprisingly, doesn't play as well when a player gets to levels where the pitchers have better control.) Not what I would expect from a strong-man clown.

How does a gay person get equated with someone who's harrasing you to change your religion?

Fick used antigay slurs while complaining about how uncomfortable he would be around gay people in "his clubhouse." He doesn't sound like the lost soul working his way through his issues that he's being made out to be in this thread.

Fick used antigay slurs while complaining about how uncomfortable he would be around gay people in "his clubhouse." He doesn't sound like the lost soul working his way through his issues that he's being made out to be in this thread.

Hey now there is a big stretch of land between "lost soul" and "scumbag" and most folks fit there. Where exactly he is I have no idea. Heck likely he is closer to scumbag, I have no idea I know nothing about the dude.

“I can’t meet gays in… I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,” said Fick,...

You know who makes ME uncomfortable? Bigots, that's who.

sometimes i think that some guys don't want a gay teammate because they don't want to know what it is like to be sexually hassled like they sexually hassle females

Enough of this shit. I've been sexually assaulted by women at least half a dozen times. The only male friends I have who haven't been groped, catcalled, hassled, harassed, assaulted, and worse are, to be blunt, extremely unattractive. The only real difference is the end result, where unlike a woman I have no fear of being overpowered.

That's a huge difference, of course, but the idea that woman's behavior wrt sexual harassment isn't on a par with men's is ridiculous. It's not the behavior that's different, it's the ultimate outcome.

My grandpa still drops the n-word like it's nothing. He's not a scumbag, he's just set in his ways and no amount of social reconditioning is going to magically transform him into a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Let's imagine for the moment your grandpa is not a recluse or an imbecile. He is then perfectly aware how incredibly offensive it is to use the word 'nigger' in casual conversation.

I know no one demeans and insults an entire race of human beings without being perfectly well aware how offensive they're being. It's intentional. It's in your face vulgarity. It's 'no one's gonna tell me what I can say' childish idiocy. It's 'look at me and my foul mouth' garbage.

He may not be a 'scumbag' but he's doing his damnedest to erase any distinctions.

Yeah, it's definitely the first 50+ steal season from a first baseman that I've seen in quite a while...

Not to be a bummer, but his primary position was as an outfielder every year of his career.
Still, weird numbers. That 111 walk year, he had 81 singles and 8 extra base hits (including 3 doubles). Punchless wonder...

This dude makes me think of Gary Redus (obviously a far better player with more power). Redus somewhat famously had a monster first year in pro ball, hitting .462/.559/.787 in 325 PA for Billings his first year. Three years later, he stole 48 bases for AA Waterbury while spending almost half his time at first (.249/.356/.447). As a big leaguer, though, he stuck to the outfield until age 31 when his days of stealing lots of bases were behind him (25 SB in 324 PA).

What about all of this talk about the purpose of sex, and what various church doctrines say about either the purpose or permissibility of sex? Maybe that's not really the relevant question. This thread started out being about whether professional athletes would tolerate an openly gay teammate.

1. Suppose an athlete cohabits with a woman (and presumably, as far as anyone knows, has frequent sex with that woman) but is not married to her. (And let's suppose that this is, as far as anyone knows, a monogamous relationship). Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

2. Suppose an athlete is not married and not attached to any one woman, and frequently has sex with different women whom he meets in different cities. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

3. Suppose an athlete is married, but frequently has sex with a particular woman other than his wife. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

4. Suppose an athlete is married, but is a "player", actively seeking out sex with various available other partners. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

5. Suppose an athlete is openly gay. Would his teammates have any objection or discomfort with being his teammate?

Run all of those through your church doctrines and your statements of the purpose of sex. If answer to the question changes only between #4 and #5, that's really not religious doctrine at all. That's "yuck".

I would not have objection to being a teammate in any of these scenarios. If any caused me discomfort, it would be 4 and possibly 3, more than 5.

'Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful, loving marriage'

If that's how you like to swing, swing it that way brahmin. But as Vlad points out @139, it's unjust to deny gays and lesbians access to that same "wonderful, beautiful thing" just because you are hung up on an outmoded definition of "marriage." Either embrace the idea that loving couples should get married to validate their sexual longing, or accept that sex isn't a marriage-based instinct.

I realize we have disagreements. The main purpose of my post was to counter the statement in 127 (and I believe shared by many who oppose the Catholic Church's view of sexuality) that implies that those of us who adhere to the Church's teaching have dismal, depressing sex lives and believe sex itself is dismal and depressing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The main purpose of my post was to counter the statement in 127 (and I believe shared by many who oppose the Catholic Church's view of sexuality) that implies that those of us who adhere to the Church's teaching have dismal, depressing sex lives and believe sex itself is dismal and depressing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't think that the Catholic Church's view of sexuality for homosexuals is dismal and depressing? It offers them the binary choice of either procreative sex with an individual for whom they feel no physical attraction within the confines of a sham marriage, or a lifetime of abstinence. They aren't even allowed to masturbate!

I'm not sure about you, but I'd consider those options to be pretty dismal and depressing, if I'd been born gay.

Just out of curiosity, how many knuckle-dragging fascists & their slack-jawed, slope-browed followers identify themselves as anything other than Christian?

In the US? Fairly few. On a global scale? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, and Osama bin Laden all identified as something other than Christian. "Live your life my way, or I'll try to end it" is a sentiment that knows no religious boundaries.

In the US? Fairly few. On a global scale? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, and Osama bin Laden all identified as something other than Christian. "Live your life my way, or I'll try to end it" is a sentiment that knows no religious boundaries.

Should've clarified -- I was talking about the political climate in the U.S. today.

The main purpose of my post was to counter the statement in 127 (and I believe shared by many who oppose the Catholic Church's view of sexuality) that implies that those of us who adhere to the Church's teaching have dismal, depressing sex lives

Oh, sure. I don't doubt that Catholics have joyful, interesting sex lives. They just have to ask forgiveness for it afterwards.

But it means you're making a facile point--blaming Christianity for a universal behavioral trait that has nothing specifically to do with Christianity. We may no longer be a Christian nation in terms of practice, but we're still a nation in which the cultural default is assumed to be Christian. Because of that, the knuckle-dragging fascists in this country align themselves with Christianity. In other countries, they align themselves with Islam, or even with state-mandated atheism. It's the universal tendency of the knuckle-dragging fascist to assume the cultural default, push it rightward until it's reactionary, and use it as a club.

Should've clarified -- I was talking about the political climate in the U.S. today.

At that point it becomes a rhetorical bromide more than a question. Some might call it a "gotcha question." Fascism is always a movement of populist nationalism draped in the historically dominant cultural trappings. In Germany it was protestant; in Spain, Catholic; in Italy, sort of vaguely Roman with patronage to the Vatican. In Soviet states, fascism was soviet; in the Muslim diaspora, Islamic. In the United States, any popular strain of fascist thinking will wear the cloak of Christianity.

Adolph Hitler was a proud professed Catholic and was never excommunicated. Of course noted theologian Jack Chick argues that Catholics are not "Christian" so you may be technically correct above.

Hitler also systematically undermined and discouraged church attendence during his chancellorship. He may have professed himself to be a Catholic, but the position of the Nazi party on faith was "the party is your religion."

Hitler also systematically undermined and discouraged church attendence during his chancellorship. He may have professed himself to be a Catholic, but the position of the Nazi party on faith was "the party is your religion."

This is true of all historical fascisms. Fascism is the merger of a dominant culture, be it religious or atheistic, with the state, and the brutal, violent repression of any dissent.

188-Bullshit. Hitler the man hated Christianity, because it came from the Jews. Hitler the politician, of course sang a different song for a while.
My goodness, but you're a strange, bitter, little 3-track crank.

Hitler the man hated Christianity, because it came from the Jews. Hitler the politician, of course sang a different song for a while.

The historical question for Christianity and Catholicism specifically to grapple with isn't what Adolf Hitler believed in his heart of hearts. The question to be grappled with is why organized Christianity, notably the Catholic Church, didn't distance themselves from Hitler and the Nazis until well after the fact. Christianity is not problematic because Hitler (honestly or facetiously) self-identified as a Christian. Christianity's history during WW II is problematic because the Vatican never saw fit to condemn Hitler.

how many knuckle-dragging fascists & their slack-jawed, slope-browed followers identify as anything other than Christian

I can't comment on their proportion of Neanderthal DNA that may influence their outward appearance phenotype, but I think you could get quite a few Muslims and at least a few orthodox Jewish sects in there.

I am unclear on Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or Confucian identity and Gaygaysex. For entertainment's sake I would rank them in "homophobe probability" high to low as:

Confucian
Hindu
Shinto
Buddhist
Atheist
Wiccan/Pagan/New Age

Does Libertarian count as a religion?

There are probably lots of the US Jock/Brute/Biker/Gangbanger subtype who don't identify strongly with any religion. I certainly knew a few back in high school in the 80s.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are Waldensians...bloody splitters.

Pretty much all of your medieval heretics seem like they would be unbelievably tedious to talk to. The Cathars? The Bogomils? It's all "I'm persecuted" this and "Live in Christlike poverty" that. Blergh.

This is true of all historical fascisms. Fascism is the merger of a dominant culture, be it religious or atheistic, with the state, and the brutal, violent repression of any dissent.

Of course. What I was responding to was BBC's objection to

Certain People and They Know Who They Are, around here who too often tie together "conservative" "republican" and "evangelical christian" as every person who is christian and not atheist/secularist is stupid/intolerant/bigoted etc.

That quote's a bit scrambled, but if fascists &/or the shockingly stupid are parading (insincerely or otherwise) while wearing the mantle of Christianity, non-fascist Christians shouldn't necessarily be shocked if some of us look askance at their brand.